Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the Department of Health. (Photo: GCIS)
The Department of Health says the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Monday has no impact on the National Health Insurance Act (NHIA).
“It is important to clarify that the judgment is not a judgment related to the NGV,” says Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the Department of Health.
On Monday, the Constitutional Court declared articles 36 to 40 of the National Health Act of 2003, which disregard health practitioners’ right to decide what services they provide – and where they provide them – unconstitutional.
“The articles in question were accepted by parliament 23 years ago and never put into effect, says Mohale now. “So there is no direct impact of the ruling on the NGV.”
Mohale says politicians and some people in the private health sector were quick to mislead the public after the verdict.
“No article of the NGV has been declared unconstitutional.”
The Constitutional Court Judgement handed on Monday, 18 May, declared that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 are inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid in that they are irrational and unjustifiably limit the right to choose a trade, occupation… pic.twitter.com/bK4wKOC75b
— National Department of Health (@HealthZA) May 18, 2026
It therefore does not change anything about the government’s plans for the country’s health system.
“The department will continue with all necessary preparations for strengthening the health system for the NHS as the mechanism for South Africa to achieve universal health care coverage.
“This is in line with the provisions of section 27 of the Constitution which guarantees everyone the right to access health care services, including reproductive health care.”
However, Solidarity believes that Monday’s verdict is a huge victory for health practitioners and the wider public.
The organization says the so-called certificate of need was one of the most important mechanisms by which the government wanted to exercise greater control over the health industry.
According to Solidarity, this would have increasingly given the state the power to determine which health practitioner may practice where and which services may be provided.
Anton van der Bijl. (Photo: Reint Dykema)
Anton van der Bijl, deputy chief executive of Solidarity, said earlier on Monday that the verdict overturns one of the central pillars on which the government’s distorted and destructive health plans rest.
“The certificate of need was much more than just an administrative instrument. It was an instrument of centralization and state control,” Van der Bijl said after the verdict.
“The government wanted to move health practitioners around like its own pawns on a chessboard to cover up its own failures. Today the court said South Africans are not state property and professionals are not pawns of the government.”